Muhammed Ali P v. State of Kerala and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1097 OF 2023`** ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC 1434/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT &`** ## **`SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` MUHAMMED ALI P AGED 45 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, PARAMMAL HOUSE, EPPIKKAD, EDAPPATTA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679326 ``` ``` BY ADV K.RAKESH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MELATTUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679326` - `3 BALRAM AGED 55 YEARS` - `S/O. RAMANKUTTY, PARIYAMKADAVATH KALATHIL HOUSE, POOKKOTTUMPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679332` - `4 ADDL. R4, SRI.PUTHANPURAKKAL SHAJI MON AGED 45 YEARS` - `NILAMBUR TALUK, AMARAMBALAM AMSAM, POOKKOTTUMPADAM P.O, IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3/4/2023 IN BA.NO.1097/2023.` - `5 ADDL. R5, P.K.BALARAM AGED 54 YEARS` - `NILAMBUR TALUK, AMARAMBALAM AMSAM,` - `POOKKOTTUMPADAM P.O , IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3/4/2023 IN BA.NO.1097/2023.` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1097 OF 2023 ``` 2 ``` BY ADVS. MAYA M.N. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SATHISAN P. ATHUL RAJESH(K/1062/2020) DONA AUGUSTINE(K/180/2016) SHIBU B.S(K/001060/2021) BIJU P.PAUL(K/000648/2022) ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1097 OF 2023 ``` 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-----------------------------Bail Appl. No.1097 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 09[th] day of August, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.640/2022 of Melattur Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that in the month of August 2021, the defacto complainant and his friend entered in to a sale agreement with the accused to purchase his property situated in Survey No.232 of Edapatta Village for a total consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- and paid an advance of Rs.35,00,000/-. ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1097 OF 2023 ``` 4 Subsequently, on verification of the encumbrance certificate, the defacto complainant came to know that the accused pledged the property in Perinthalmanna Co-operative Bank for a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- and sale agreement was executed with the defacto complainant by suppressing the said loan. Thus, it is stated that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. When this Bail Application came up for consideration on 26.07.2023, this Court passed the following order: “Petitioner will appear before the investigating officer on 02.08.2023 and the investigating officer shall interrogate the petitioner. Investigating officer is free to direct the petitioner to appear on subsequent dates, if necessary. Investigating officer, after interrogation, will submit a report before this Court on 07.08.2023. ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1097 OF 2023 ``` 5 ## Petitioner shall not be arrested. Issue a copy of this order to the learned Public Prosecutor , who will communicate the same to the investigating officer.” 6. Today, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the investigating officer but, not co-operated with the investigation. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel submitted that the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out in this case. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the case is purely civil in nature. It is also submitted that the defacto complainant filed a civil suit against the Mother of the petitioner and the same is pending as O.S No.114/2022 before the Sub-Court, Manjeri. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation. ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1097 OF 2023 ``` 6 7. After hearing both sides, I think the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, the case can be proved through the documentary and oral evidence. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in this case. Therefore, the bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870)** , after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same in as much as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to 7 ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1097 OF 2023 ``` ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 9. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation; 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned; 3. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1097 OF 2023 ``` 8 required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; 4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected; 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- nvj ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**